This reading really resonated with me. I think we see this happening all the time in education. I would say that probably 70% of the formal education I have participated in from 1st grade through my PhD program has engaged me in the “Game of School” rather than in authentic learning. You know it is taking place when you are looking at what it will take to meet the expectations of the teacher or professor, rather than what it will take to meet your own expectations and follow your own curiosity. One of the reasons I have been successful in the traditional transmission model system is because I have learned strategies for the “game of school.” I have always felt great empathy for those who either struggle more with developing those strategies or who simply rebel against the idea of subsuming their own interests to the interests of others, day after day, hour after hour. Research shows boredom and lack of interest is a key reason that young people drop out of high school or don’t pursue higher education despite the potential rewards. Students who are dealing with difficult life pressures such as poverty, racism or abuse seem to have a lower tolerance for this environment. Perhaps their struggles have made them wiser in a sense. This concept of the game of school does a nice job of summing up why I am so interested in reform.
It is hard to blame teachers for this. They went through the same system. It was what was expected of them. There are usually rigid policies and expectations in place that reinforce recreating the game of school. It is often difficult for teachers who want to operate differently to do so because it would require aligning schedules and resources differently, which is something teachers have no control over. That is not to say that we should not train teachers to employ methods that enable them to more actively engage their learners and expect that of them. But we also need to be aware of the constraints and the added disingenuousness of trying a different approach within a structure that doesn’t support it.
I also agree that it comes naturally to students to try to game a classroom that doesn’t appeal to them authentically. The question is whether or not we can create a system that allows for the breadth of interests that our students have and the fact that they are changing all the time. As well as models that capture motivation and interest where it isn’t naturally occurring. New models like Big Picture Learning and the Met School are providing pathways, as are other creative approaches across the country in both traditional and charter schools.
There will always be things that adults think are important for every child to learn, regardless of interest and motivation, and they may probably be right in some of those instances. As a result there will always be kids who are playing the game of school. The question becomes how can we move toward less gaming of school and more authentic learning.
Julie DiBari
Week One
This reading really resonated with me. I think we see this happening all the time in education. I would say that probably 70% of the formal education I have participated in from 1st grade through my PhD program has engaged me in the “Game of School” rather than in authentic learning. You know it is taking place when you are looking at what it will take to meet the expectations of the teacher or professor, rather than what it will take to meet your own expectations and follow your own curiosity. One of the reasons I have been successful in the traditional transmission model system is because I have learned strategies for the “game of school.” I have always felt great empathy for those who either struggle more with developing those strategies or who simply rebel against the idea of subsuming their own interests to the interests of others, day after day, hour after hour. Research shows boredom and lack of interest is a key reason that young people drop out of high school or don’t pursue higher education despite the potential rewards. Students who are dealing with difficult life pressures such as poverty, racism or abuse seem to have a lower tolerance for this environment. Perhaps their struggles have made them wiser in a sense. This concept of the game of school does a nice job of summing up why I am so interested in reform.
It is hard to blame teachers for this. They went through the same system. It was what was expected of them. There are usually rigid policies and expectations in place that reinforce recreating the game of school. It is often difficult for teachers who want to operate differently to do so because it would require aligning schedules and resources differently, which is something teachers have no control over. That is not to say that we should not train teachers to employ methods that enable them to more actively engage their learners and expect that of them. But we also need to be aware of the constraints and the added disingenuousness of trying a different approach within a structure that doesn’t support it.
I also agree that it comes naturally to students to try to game a classroom that doesn’t appeal to them authentically. The question is whether or not we can create a system that allows for the breadth of interests that our students have and the fact that they are changing all the time. As well as models that capture motivation and interest where it isn’t naturally occurring. New models like Big Picture Learning and the Met School are providing pathways, as are other creative approaches across the country in both traditional and charter schools.
There will always be things that adults think are important for every child to learn, regardless of interest and motivation, and they may probably be right in some of those instances. As a result there will always be kids who are playing the game of school. The question becomes how can we move toward less gaming of school and more authentic learning.